TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. These appeals are at the instance of assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner (Adjudication) dated 27-7-1998. Challenge is directed against imposition of penalty of an amount of Rs. 41,21,321/-. Duty confirmed under the impugned order had already been paid by the assessee prior to the issue of show cause notice. 2. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty under Section 11AC and demand of interest under Section 11AB. There was also a proposal for confiscation under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The appellant replied contending that at the time of clearance of the goods at the factory gate it was not possible to pay duty on the escalation charges as it will not be determined at that time. It also pointed out that the procedure followe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf of the Revenue. Duty was payable at the time of clearance of the goods. The appellant had not suppressed the contract from the authorities. The contract contained provision for escalation. If that be so, there is no question of suppression of relevant facts. In such circumstances, it would have been possible for the Revenue to go for provisional assessment so that at a later stage when the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
